About your Search

20120928
20121006
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
conservative court but that he'll do it gradually. >> he's not trying to move the law radically quickly. i think, justice scalia, or justice thomas really want to get to the end answer as quickly as possible, and make the law conform to what they really understand. whereas the chief justice is more incrementallist. >> reporter: but conservative court watcher carrie severino doesn't believe much will change any time soon. >> certainly this is not a crusading conservative court, until we have a shift, i think in the membership of the court it's impossible to call it a court that leans more to the left or to the right. >> reporter: for the opinions that could be close 5-4 decisions, attention will also be paid to justice anthony kennedy, who's frequently the swing vote in some of the toughest cases. >> joe johns the for us in washington. >>> a tennessee house fire leaves two grandparents dead, and there's no sign of two kids who were staying at the home. it's been a week and investigators are getting desperate. improve the health of your skin with aveeno daily moisturizing lotion. the natural
the law. um, and if you do that in this case, there is no reasonable justification for a continuation of the exclusivity ban. so i think, i think the chairman's order, um, as you describe it, um, is the appropriate course of action to take. um, you know, are -- and that's been comcast's position in the proceeding. um, life is long. as you note, our order lasts until 2018. um, and so for whatever it applies to over that period of time, it applies to. but after that period of time we should be treated like everybody else, um, and again if, um, if people believe that it is appropriate for the exclusivity ban to continue, they need to go back to congress and to get different legislation than the legislation that exists now. because the current legislation simply does not support the exclusivity ban in the current competitive positive -- posture of the marketplace. >> what happens when october 5th rolls around and it expires? do we suddenly see several exclusive contracts out there? >> guest: i don't think so. i think the fears have been overstated. i think that the marketplace now is such
health care law last june. so how might mitt romney change the high court if he becomes president of the united states? he's already giving all of us some major clues. let's bring in cnn's crime and justice correspondent joe johns who's taking a closer look. what are you seeing? >> the supreme court doesn't get talked about that much on the campaign trail. but choosing a justice is one of the most important things a president does. it's how on administration puts its mark on some of the nation east toughest, most divisive issues. and we have a look at how mitt romney might handle it if he's president. whenever mitt romney fielded questions during the primaries about his picks for the supreme court, he was armed with a stock republican answer. >> what i would look to do would be to appoint people to the supreme court that will follow strictly the constitution as opposed to to legislating from the bench. >> reporter: but he wouldn't choose a favorite. >> would you pick one, please? >> yes, roberts, thomas, alito and scalia. >> reporter: all that changed in june when roberts cast the
don't understand where that law came from, i thought a majority is anything that's above 50%, and i don't know where this 60% came from. maybe you could enlighten us on exactly the origin of that filibuster law. host: well, andy, that would take way too long for me to explain, but perhaps we'll do that as a segment on the "washington journal" and take our viewers and listeners through the intricacies of the rules of the house and senate. but thanks for your call. we're going to move on to ron on our line for democrats, calling from florida. good morning, ron. caller: good morning. host: ron, divided party -- one party or divided government? caller: well, that question is -- the underlying point is you're saying a -- in essence, what you're saying is a one-party state, and that just doesn't work. it was proved in the soviet union and the place where i immigrated from, which was cuba. the problem is, as someone said, this is not your father's republican party. when you have a new crop signing a pledge before they even take office that allows them no room to negotiate, on top of that,
in elections. but challengers say with more minorities elected nationwide, the law is outdated. >> we have african-americans, representing districts in the deep south that are almost all white. >> and the federal law called the defense of marriage act signed by president clinton. it says the federal government will recognize only conventional marriages, meaning no federal benefits in states where same-sex marriage is already equal. in the court did strike the law down, states would not be required to permit same-sex marriages but the federal government would have to recognize them where they're legal. craig, back to you. >> pete williams in washington. thanks so much for that let's switch gears to indiana and the senate race where things just got lot more interesting. a few months ago, tea party star, richard murdoch, defeated veteran republican senator richard luger. murdoch's campaign was built on framing dick luger as a rhino, a republican in name only. but guess who has gone rhino? you got it, it's murdoch. an apparent attempt to pander to moderate voters by scrapping the ultraconserva
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)